When Ebert tweeted that he was unaware of the term's pornographic connotation, Big Hollywood countered that he had referred to such a context in past movie reviews.

Ha. It must have been "Pecker." I love that movie. Yeah. Here's Retracto the Correction Alpaca calling gotcha on Ebert — complete with "Pecker"-clip. Frankly, I can see how someone could have reviewed "Pecker" and even talked about the teabagging in "Pecker" — which is pretty silly — and not realize that the word had moved beyond that context into the general parlance and was implied by the term that is now used to mock tea partiers.

That movie also uses the expression "shopping for others." I remember that, but remembering that doesn't tell me that it's become a term for something people are really doing these days. [ADDED: I see that the link within that link now goes to the absence of a YouTube clip from the movie. It was a scene in which Pecker, a budding young photographer, and his friend go into a store and put embarrassing items in other people's shopping carts when they're not looking. Pecker then takes pictures of their reactions at the checkout counter.]

Anyway, I welcome Roger Ebert to the Tweet-o-sphere. It's great when an excellent, interesting writer takes to the 140-character art form. Follow him here. I am.

I would say my best interests are served by not being controlled by douchebags like him who think they know more about my life than I do. Seriously, would you rather make your own decisions about your life or be under the thumb of some arrogant prick who thinks he's so smart that not only does he know how to run his own life, but he has enough mojo left over to run yours, too. For your own good, of course.

Did the Greek public servants vote against their own self interest when they gave themselves an unsustainable economy? Did the autoworkers vote against their own self interest when they voted to crush their employers with unsustainable contracts? Did California public servants vote against their own self interest? Does Roger Ebert vote against his health's self interest when he elects to not push away from the buffet table. It is sad.

Puh-leeze. Ebert's turned bitter and hateful, and not because of his illness. You've conveniently overlooked the shots he took at Limbaugh while Limbaugh was in the hospital, which, admittedly, Ebert later apologized for. He knew full well what teabagging was and intended it to belittle the movement. His political essays are lousy though I greatly admire his piece on Steak N Shake. Sorry, he's not worth following on Twitter.

Ebert is sad that you aren't smart enough to know what's in your best interest. The fact that you don't know what's in your own self interest, but progressive socialists do know, is proof that you are being manipulated by evil forces.

He's sad but smart. You're not smart. He's only trying to save you from your own igoranace. Lighten up on Ebert.

For those un-familiar with this little up-and-coming meme "TeePee" is the replacement term assholes like Roger Ebert have resorted to since they've been shamed out of calling American voters Teabaggers.

Ebert is another in a long line of liberals who believe ordinary people are too stupid to know what's in their own best interest. No, these people must have the hard decisions made for them by a strong ruling party. How does that lyric go again, "You can't even run your own life. I'll be damned if you'll run mine!"

The Esquire profile that MadisonMan linked is compelling, but it doesn't make me like Ebert or want to read him, much less follow him on Twitter. I don't follow anyone on Twitter, what's the point? (I just admitted I'm a dinosaur.)

The worst thing about Ebert is that he lets his politics pollute his art. Back in the day he used to be a good, honest movie reviewer, but those days are long gone. He gave Al Gore's monstrosity 4 stars, and whatever you may believe about the validity of the content, it was a bad movie. It had no narrative line, and as documentaries go, it was amateurish at best. Yet because of people like Ebert, who liked the political message, it won an Academy Award, when it was nothing more than a PowerPoint presentation put on the big screen.

A final reason for not following Ebert? I get insulted enough by the rest of the mainstream media. I don't need to read "tweets" maligning my intelligence or my morals. I already know what he thinks of me, and I don't care to listen to how well he can express his contempt in 140 characters or less.

Are young people voting against their own self interest when they vote for universal healthcare? Some of the innovations in medicine and machines that will be delayed or denied by moving it to a socialist system instead of capitalist system might come in handy late in their lives. Who knows? Maybe scientists could have conquered death by then or postponed it until later scientists could. Certainly they and Ebert benefit today that it was not greedily done a couple of generations ago.

I met and vaguely knew Ebert years ago, when he was a man about town. He was insulting, rude, and got punched out more than a few times for being crude to women.

He was a bad drunk- in the sense that the more he drank, the more insulting and cruder he became. I think for a while he got an ass beating a day. He loved to start fights. He was a bully and would sucker punch people. Problem was, he could not finish them. He usually wound up on the bar room floor or in the middle of the street.

He was banned from so many bars; only two would have him.

The guy was a total jerk then. He hasn't changed much now; now that he is on his final sympathy tour.

because it's so sad how they've been manipulated to oppose their own best interests

Ah...you mean like poor black families in the sixties were revved up about welfare benefits including rules about women getting more money if there were no men in the household? Yeah...how's that working out for ya?

I am not a TP participant, more a fascinated observer, but I can say that many of my friends and family, who were formerly among the sleeping, are now acutely aware of runaway spending and financial policy. They got involved without anyone manipulation at all. Well, if you don't count what the administration and Congress call their budget for 2009 and 2010.

Ebert is a perfect illustration of the notion that very bright people shouldn't stray from their realm of expertise. In his arrogance, Roger thinks his views on politics, which amount to simple parroting of Keith O. and such, have equal value with his brilliant movie writing.

I admire Ebert a great deal, and think he's a man of insight and compassion - but his political tweets are intellectually lazy, of the "Democrats GOOD, Republicans BAD" or "OMG, Sarah Palin is SOOOOO STUPIDE!!!1!" variety.

But his reviews are pretty much infallible in determining if I'll like a movie or not.

NewHam I always regarded this fat lil boy-bitch one of those pieces of shit that got the shit kicked out of himself at recess. Now he wants to flail away at those long-ago bullies who demonstrated his true zero capacity.

A liar, a creep, an all-round fatboy who has to kiss ass just to stay in Hollyweird with the other gargoyles.

What's hilarious about all this is the the TPers opponents are only slightly smarter than they are. Instead of calling them names, the Dems could oppose the tea parties at a higher level, as discussed at the link. However, as also discussed at the link, it's in the Dems' best interest to encourage the partiers since they're serving the interests of the Dems and the far-left.

First, find an Ebert article in which he berates or praises some particular style of film-making. This is, to a first approximation, all of them. Second, find another Ebert article in which he adopts the exact opposite position. E.g., "One Day in September" versus "Bowling for Columbine".